Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
03-27-2012, 11:46 PM,
#31
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
A book that delves into the the Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement in a direct manner. In reading the summary it comes across as a bit generalist in saying that all nations are denied since China and India are being given free reign on building up their nuclear power base using better technologies than say, the aging reactors in Japan, most of Europe (where ~40% of EU power demand is met by nuclear energy) and the US.

Quote:Nuclear Power: Anathema to the New World Order
By John Coleman
Publication Date: October 30, 2010


One of the greatest advances made by man was the discovery of nuclear energy as a source of cheap and safe electricity. It promised to transform the world within a time frame of a maximum of three decades. In order to understand world events in both the areas of politics and economics, one must have a thorough understanding of religion and secret societies which play a leading role in world events. Secret societies, more so in 2008 than ever before, greatly influence the course of momentous events. The rich and the powerful belong to secret societies that most ordinary people have never, even heard about, and it comes as a surprise to many to find out that such notable personages the Elizabeth, Queen of England is a member of a number of them, all of which play a big role in shaping the course of events.

Nuclear power generated electricity is particularly hated by the leaders of secret societies, the men the Bible calls “spiritual men who walk in darkness and whose deeds are evil.” The Bible foreshadowed the coming of plague pandemics such as AIDS and SARS, ordained for the world’s “excess” population diminution by these leaders. Nuclear power is hated by the elite because it brings new hope to millions of people who will aspire to a better life once nuclear power is running and available in every city and town throughout the world. The very poor, the downtrodden and the unwanted see new hope in nuclear generated power, as the book goes to some length to explain, the very thing the Illuminati members are so much against. They don’t want an extension of life for those who would otherwise die at a very early age in such countries and India and China.

The book makes it clear that if nuclear power is allowed to reach its full capacity and its full promise, the world will take on a new lease of life that will be of unmatched benefit to all people of all nations. It also makes it clear why there are powerful people who see this as an unmitigated disaster and who will do all in their considerable power to prevent nuclear power coming into full flower.
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Anathema-World-Order/dp/B001RF2DJS

[Image: f5a8c0a398a0196cc7590210.L._AA300_.jpg]

I'd very much like to acquire this in PDF Wink
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
04-04-2012, 09:04 PM,
#32
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
The political aspects aside, I really like solar technology and I am disappointed that man didn't delve deeper into trying to make it work for our energy needs before resorting to using dangerous nuclear energy instead.
Reply
04-05-2012, 02:29 AM,
#33
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
(04-04-2012, 09:04 PM)Sovereignman Wrote: I really like solar technology and I am disappointed that man didn't delve deeper into trying to make it work for our energy needs before resorting to using dangerous nuclear energy instead.

You can't make nuclear weapons from solar power.

[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
04-06-2012, 04:55 PM,
#34
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
But how much destruction (mining, labour, forced purchase, subsidy, patent, land footprint) can the solar power industry, in its current and proposed form wreak?

he Trillions Poured into Multi-National Solar Energy - Green Hope & Epic Boondoggles
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=38957

Quote:The Thorium Dream (2011)
There’s much to take for granted in the evolution of technology, or at least in the way that technology appears to us today – refined, perfected, ever cutting-edge.

Globally, our energy and resource supplies are becoming increasingly costly to extract and use. Demand has never been higher; ditto levels of CO2 and other terrible greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Nuclear energy is powerful, but it can look worse, given persistent waste storage issues and the threat of proliferation.

So when the topic of thorium nuclear energy comes up at a party, or in a webpage comment string, it elicits angry dismissals, or heaps of praise.

The idea of building small, thorium-based nuclear reactors – thought to be dramatically safer, cheaper, cleaner and terror-proof than our current catalog of reactors – can be shooed away as fringe by some.

Watch the full documentary now (28:26)



http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/thorium-dream/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
05-17-2012, 04:10 PM,
#35
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
The last news I heard on the no nuke front was Japan was shutting down nuke power plants for maintenance and there was a question if they would go online again. Before that news Germany said they were treading away from the nuke power plant. So assuming the elite know way more than I know about free energy I wonder what free energy source will they tap to sell us energy and of course what dummy figure head will they put in front perhaps explaining more efficient power generation.

The biggest front man ever would have to be Dr. Goddard but you can read about that in the published works of Mr. Lyne.
Reply
05-30-2012, 04:41 PM,
#36
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
Quote:It’s time to stop being scared of the atom
Our irrational fear of nuclear power is undermining the search for a safe, clean source of energy, argues Paddy Regan.
By Paddy Regan
9:00AM BST 29 May 2012


Three places: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. And three more: Banqiao, Machhu II, Hiakud. Most people react with horror to the first trio, while the second three locations usually draw a blank look. In fact, the latter were the sites of three major hydroelectric dam failures: in China and India in 1975, 1979 and 1980, which were directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. In contrast, the death toll directly associated with radiation exposure from the three best-known civil nuclear accidents is estimated by the World Health Organisation to be conservatively about 50, all associated with Chernobyl.

Nuclear power has had a pretty bad press recently. In the post-Fukushima world, major power companies such as the German-owned E.ON and RWE-npower have taken the decision not to invest in building new nuclear power stations in Britain, citing costs in the current economic climate.

Some activists argue that the economics of construction and operation of nuclear power stations are sufficiently prohibitive that increased investment in safe, renewable power supplies such as offshore wind projects are a more attractive option.

But why is nuclear power now so expensive? I suggest that it is at least partly due to an inflated analysis of the potential health risks associated with civilian nuclear waste in particular, and an exaggerated assessment of “nuclear risk” in general.

It is true that the management of waste reactor fuel is a significant fraction of the overall costs, but if nuclear waste disposal were calculated in proportion to the actual risk associated with the hazard, the prohibitive economics of nuclear power would be reduced significantly.

Indeed, “nuclear risk” is in a category all of its own, as was seen all too clearly last year when a major natural disaster, the Tohoku earthquake, which killed tens of thousands of people, was quickly overshadowed in the global collective consciousness by the consequent nuclear incident at the Fukushima plant, which killed no one.

A number of countries, most notably Germany changed their national energy policy with regard to the future development of civilian nuclear power.

The public reaction to Fukushima and the response compared with other energy-related disasters raises the question: what is it specifically about nuclear power issues that provokes such a strong response?

It was back in the Thirties that Otto Frisch and Lise Meitner showed that splitting a heavy uranium nucleus into two lighter elements, such as strontium and xenon, resulted in the release of millions of times more energy per atom than burning coal.

Nuclear technology then rapidly expanded as a result of the Manhattan Project, with the construction of superweapons capable of unleashing the explosive power of uncontrolled nuclear fission and, later, fusion. Iconic images of mushroom clouds became fixed in our minds following the devastations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And so, for many, civilian nuclear power and images associated with nuclear weapons remain intimately linked.

I believe that this emotional link between defence and civilian applications of nuclear technology constrains a rational, scientific analysis of the uses and relative benefits of nuclear power. Certainly, fears of the biological effects of invisible radiation can lead to some bizarre behaviour.

The Italian foreign ministry, for example, recommended that its citizens flew out of Tokyo to avoid potential radiation exposure in the first couple of weeks following the Fukushima leak. While the radiation levels in the Japanese capital rose significantly above normal, they remained lower than the typical average background radiation levels in Rome, leading to the bizarre situation of individuals being relocated to places with higher radiation levels than those they were leaving.

And a pervasive myth has taken hold that even tiny amounts of radiation are unsafe. In reality, this cannot be so, as humans have evolved in an invisible sea of naturally occurring radioactivity. Much of this arises from radioactive forms of potassium, uranium and thorium; remnants of the Earth’s formation more than 4 billion years ago. Human bodies are bubbling with radioactivity, with around 7,000 atoms decaying each second due to radioactivity from potassium-40 and carbon-14.

Our understanding of the biological effects of radiation has been developed over more than 80 years, following the first meeting of the First International Congress of Radiology in London in 1925. Radiation-induced effects such as radiation sickness were noted to occur with exposure to specific organs only above a well-defined threshold dose. As to cancer, the probability of a malignant tumour arising is thought to be related to the quantity and type of radiation to which an individual has been exposed.

The cohort of Japanese bomb survivors who were exposed in 1945 are the standard baseline for radiation-induced cancer effects in humans, and the majority of the data on the long-term effects of radiation on humans comes from detailed studies of this group. Perhaps surprisingly, of the 87,000 individuals in this cohort more than 30,000 were still alive 55 years after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

This group showed approximately 10,000 deaths from leukaemia and other cancers up to the year 2000, but it has been estimated that only approximately 500 of these individuals died from cancers associated with their radiation exposure to the atom bombs.

There have been three major accidents in nuclear power production in more than 14,000 “reactor years” of operational, civilian nuclear power. The reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 made headlines but the melted fuel remained contained within the main reactor vessel, with no measurable radiation health consequences.

At Chernobyl a steam explosion blew out the reactor-holding vessel, the reactor core caught fire and a radioactive plume belched into the atmosphere for 10 days, with an estimated 5 per cent of the entire reactor core released. Twenty eight people, mostly firefighters, died within a few weeks of exposure from acute radiation syndrome. According to the World Health Organisation, an additional 19 died between 1987 and 2004 of cancers which might have been radiation-induced.

In the 20 years following 1986, no statistically significant health effects on the wider population could be correlated to caesium-137 exposure from the Chernobyl release.

But it is what to do with radioactive waste that remains a major and emotive issue in the minds of the public and politicians alike. Although some elements in spent fuel waste can remain radioactive for many thousands of years, the safety issues here seem to be political, rather than technical. Indeed, nature provides excellent examples of nuclear waste storage, with the example of the Oklo natural reactor in Gabon. Geological examination of this area shows evidence of an ancient, naturally occurring nuclear reactor within the uranium-rich mineral deposits which operated approximately two billion years ago. The radioactive “waste material” from the natural reactor at Oklo appears to have migrated less than 10 metres from where it was formed.

If this is what happens in nature’s random geological disposal site, a carefully chosen, geologically stable deep storage facility for vitrified nuclear fuel waste would seem safe to me. Civilian nuclear power represents approximately one sixth of the world’s current electricity production, operating in more than 30 countries.

Interestingly, while the civilian nuclear programmes have their ups and downs, fundamental nuclear physics research has never been more vibrant.

The danger for future generations is that our residual, Cold War-based fear of radiation means that we face an uncertain future, reliant for our energy needs on coal, imported gas and unproven technologies such as carbon capture and offshore wind farms. Meanwhile Britain’s carbon reduction targets remain as unattainable as ever.

Our irrational fear of the atom stands in the way of the development of nuclear power and its potentially vital contribution to the long-term energy needs of an ever-increasing and energy-greedy world population.

Paddy Regan is director of the MSc course in radiation and environmental protection at the University of Surrey, Guildford
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/hydro_electricenergy/9296762/Its-time-to-stop-being-scared-of-the-atom.html
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
06-05-2012, 09:52 PM,
#37
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters
From the E-Cat description above:

Quote:The E-Cat combines a small amount of the abundant and safe element nickel with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst (the name of which is proprietary for now) under pressure in a sealed chamber. When a small amount of heat is applied to the chamber, it starts a nuclear reaction that generates more energy -- over 30 times more -- in the form of heat.

The reaction is from atomic hydrogen H which is one of the
elemental hydrogen of the supplied hydrogen gas H2.
The small amount of heat that is mentioned is to separate the
H2 into 2 H which is 103 cal/ mole.

The 2H can combine back to H2 with a release of thermal
energy captured from the environment a maximum of 109kcal/mole
a 1000 times input of heat.

The reaction perhaps only needs a sufficient metal chamber.
This reaction was written up by William R. Lyne which he now
claims was occulted in published data books until he realized
the source was among his research of Tesla and has his own
furnace to provide steam to run turbines powerful enough to
generate electricity.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lahf/
lahf · Lyne Atomic Hydrogen Furnace
A look at the front page and view of message might be possible.

Reply
01-23-2014, 01:51 PM,
#38
RE: Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami...
Debugging the hype²

It is evident there is propaganda on both sides.

Quote:Half-Lives And Half-Truths
Discovering the truth about five of the most widespread myths of the Fukushima disaster
By Dan Fumano, The Province January 19, 2014

The Japanese earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 is still being discussed three years later, particularly in relation to the catastrophic meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Faced with a lack of available official information on Fukushima and its effects, millions have tried to educate themselves on the Internet. People's Facebook feeds are suddenly awash with alarming news and confusing YouTube videos. Some have even sworn off seafood. Almost three years after the meltdown, there has been a recent tidal wave of Fukushima stories - some true, some half-true and some outright falsehoods. Stories of men with Geiger counters strolling radioactive beaches in California, fearful warnings from respected public figures and toxic fish tales are spreading around the globe like plumes of radiation on the currents of social media. Are you freaked out by Fukushima? Are you not sure what to think? Neither were we, so we went to the people who should know, to separate the science from the science section.

Here are five Fukushima fears you may be wondering about, answered by the experts - including nuclear physicists, oceanographers, marine biologists, a public health expert, an internationally renowned energy analyst and a couple of sushi chefs.

1.THE MAP OF DOOM

You may have seen this arresting image online. You may have even shared it on Facebook.

   

This map, supposedly showing radiation spreading across the ocean from Japan, was one of the most widespread pieces of Fukushima (mis) information — it was also one of the easiest myths to debunk. We just went to the source.

The map was produced by the U.S. government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and spokeswoman Keeley Belva confirmed the map doesn't show the spread of radiation.

According to their website: "This image was created by NOAA's Center for Tsunami Research and graphically shows maximum wave heights of the tsunami generated by the Japan earthquake on March 11, 2011.

"It does not represent levels of radiation from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant." The map has become "an oceanographer's in-joke," according to Robin Brown, manager of ocean sciences for Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Two months ago, Brown gave a seminar to 40 oceanographers and showed a slide of the infamous NOAA map with the headline, "West Coast Fried by Radiation." The room burst out laughing, Brown said, but their chuckles were "tinged with a bit of sadness."

"I felt so sorry for NOAA," he said. "It's a bit of a cautionary tale about how your good work could possibly show up in a place you didn't expect."

The bottom line: Yes, it's a real map, but it doesn't show radiation.

2. IS IT SAFE TO EAT THE SUSHI?

If Vancouverites start talking about avoiding sushi, there must be something dramatic going on.

"I do get a lot of questions from customers," said Keith Allison, chef and manager of Sea Monstr Sushi in Gastown.

"On Monday, I had a customer saying, 'How's it been? How's that Fukushima thing going?'" Allison, who was born in Hokkaido, Japan, and raised in Vancouver, said he's noticed the rumours picking up recently, and when business slowed down in recent months, he wondered if Fukushima concerns could be a factor. Business is still OK, Allison said, but he's selling more vegetarian items and less seafood, even though most of the fish he uses is from B.C., not Japan.

Local scientific testing of seafood is being done. A team of scientists from Oregon State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association tested 70 pounds of tuna caught off the U.S. West Coast and found trace amounts of Fukushima radiation, but "nowhere near enough to be concerned about food safety."

The OSU's Delvan Neville, a coinvestigator on the project, said: "To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just one per cent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation)-level albacore we've seen."

Dr. Erica Frank, a public health expert at the University of B.C., has heard the fears around seafood and wishes the Canadian government would do a better job communicating with the public.

"My assessment is that right now, public alarm is greater than actual public health risk," she said, adding that she has been trying to get food-testing data from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for more than a year.

The CFIA conducted special tests in 2011 and '12 for radioactive material in domestically caught seafood. All those results, which are available on the CFIA website, were well below action limits, according to the CFIA.

The bottom line: There is no discernible Fukushima-related risk in eating seafood, especially if it's locally caught. If you want to be extra cautious, avoid fish from Japan.

3. WHAT DID SUZUKI SAY?

One of the most dire and widely shared Fukushima warnings came in October from one of Vancouver's favourite scientific sons.

Dr. David Suzuki, speaking at the University of Alberta, said: "I have seen a paper which says that if, in fact, the fourth (nuclear) plant goes under in an earthquake and those (fuel) rods are exposed, it's bye-bye Japan and everybody on the West Coast of North America should evacuate," he said. "If that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is."

Suzuki's statements made waves. "David Suzuki's Fukushima Warning is Dire and Scary," read the Huffington Post headline.

The David Suzuki Foundation says the paper Suzuki cited was the 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, a 140-page paper written by an international group of scientists who concluded that "the worst-case scenario" if the fuel pool of Fukushima's Unit 4 collapses again, is it could require "evacuation of up to 10 million people in a 250-kilometre radius of Fukushima." It's a frightening warning, but there's no mention of evacuating the West Coast. The Province reached out to the respected lead author of that report, France-based nuclear energy analyst Mycle Schneider.

"I'm indeed a little confused about David's statement," said Schneider. "To be very clear, I have never seen any credible source for a scenario implying the evacuation of the West Coast of North America. In fact, much of the attitude of people on the West Coast - like no more swimming in the ocean - seems utterly disconnected from reality. "I'm really, really shocked about the way it's being discussed in Canada. It's just totally insane."

Suzuki replied to The Province by email when asked to clarify his comments, saying his October statement was "an off-the-cuff response."

He said he knew his speech was being recorded, but didn't know it would end up on the Internet.

"I regret having said it, although my sense of potential widespread disaster remains and the need for an urgent international response to dealing with the spent rods at Fukushima also remains," Suzuki said.

The bottom line: According to nuclear physicists, there's never been a warning about evacuating the West Coast.

4. UNEXPLAINED OCEAN PHENOMENA

When sea stars (starfish) were found to be dying off in massive numbers off the B.C. coast, fingers were quickly pointed at Fukushima as the cause.

"Crazy talk," said Dr. Chris Mah, a sea-star expert and researcher at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. Mah first broke the story of B.C.'s mass sunflower sea-star die-off in September 2013.

He said it's not clear what's causing the "starfish-wasting syndrome," but he listed several facts that make a direct relationship to Fukushima seem extremely unlikely, including the most compelling argument: starfish-wasting syndrome was recorded in B.C. three years before the Fukushima disaster. But it's not only sea stars. People have tried to link Japanese radiation to depleted salmon stocks, deformed whales and even a spike in miscarriages in the Pacific Northwest.

Robin Brown, a Sidney-based DFO oceanographer, is familiar with people's desire to explain surprising new phenomena.

"It's a very human thing to do. We see something unusual, and we try and match it up with something else unusual that happened at the same time," Brown said.

The bottom line: It may be our nature to want to explain the unexplainable by connecting events — but that's not how science works.

5. ARE OUR BEACHES FRIED BY RADIATION?

A YouTube clip made the rounds last month in which an unidentified man claims to find "shocking" levels of radiation on a California beach using a hand-held geiger counter.

The clip has now racked up more than 700,000 views, and caught the attention of the California Department of Public Health.

In January, DPH inspectors visited the same area.

The radiation levels found were close to those shown in the video, said California DPH spokeswoman Wendy Hopkins, but added those radiation levels are "due to naturally occurring materials and not radioactivity associated with the Fukushima incident."

Dr. Krzysztof Starosta, a nuclear scientist and associate professor at Simon Fraser University, explained that a geiger counter just doesn't work that way.

"What they've seen is natural radioactivity," said Starosta. "There's no way the geiger counter on the West Coast could detect anything remotely related to Fukushima." The DFO regularly tests sea water off of our coast, sending a vessel off Vancouver Island's western coast three times a year with scientists looking for isotopes of cesium-134.

"The important thing about cesium-134 is that you can be certain that it came from Fukushima," said Brown. "Because all other sources of cesium-134, primarily from weapons testing and Chernobyl, will all have decayed."

In June 2011, three months after the meltdown, no traces of cesium-134 were found. The following year, trace amounts were detected, but only at the westernmost testing point - 1,500 km west of Vancouver Island.

By June 2013, the Fukushima radiation was detected closer to the B.C. coast, but still well below the limits of human concern.

The bottom line: Measurable amounts of isotopes from Fukushima have travelled across the Pacific. But you will receive a more substantial dose of radiation during an airplane flight - from normal cosmic radiation — than swimming off the coast of Tofino.
Full Story + Video Embedded http://www.theprovince.com/news/Half+Lives+Half+Truths/9406811/story.html
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  View from the Borderlands - Energy from the Galactic Center vagabonder 1 479 07-22-2014, 02:02 AM
Last Post: Watchdog
  Evidences of Space Weather Induced Natural Disasters vagabonder 2 596 04-14-2014, 04:50 PM
Last Post: vagabonder
Information Brain Implant Lets One Monkey Control Another thokling 4 818 02-22-2014, 12:27 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  ecat - Energy Technologies sekular 5 1,682 02-02-2014, 07:03 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
Rainbow BlackLight Power Announces 10 MW Free Energy Device CharliePrime 3 756 02-01-2014, 09:45 PM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  OFFICIAL BEDINI SG MACHINE TRAILER - Energy from the Vacuum - DVD Part 33 investolator 7 2,333 01-28-2014, 09:02 AM
Last Post: investolator
  Hacker releases specs for anti-drone hunts mexika 1 398 12-10-2013, 08:13 PM
Last Post: April
Video ADAM High Energy Laser drummer 1 618 07-20-2013, 07:55 AM
Last Post: thokling
Video Dr M.T. Keshe - Free Energy Technologies drummer 0 755 02-27-2013, 09:24 PM
Last Post: drummer
  The nuclear energy panacea macfadden 8 1,551 02-08-2013, 03:07 PM
Last Post: macfadden

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)